It would appear that you are missing a vital fact in regards to my honestly hear, and that is this: As it pertains to the origin of sexual orientation, I am saying "I don't know." I am simply saying that regardless of one's erotic desire (sexual orientation), a person can choose how they respond to those mysterious desires. I state as much because I fail to see how the factually of that declaration can be disputed.

I'm not missing anything. You are claiming that a persons actions regarding sex determine their sexuality and orientation. This is as oppposed to the evidence which says that sexual orientation is biological.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

It would appear that you are missing a vital fact in regards to my honestly hear, and that is this: As it pertains to the origin of sexual orientation, I am saying "I don't know." I am simply saying that regardless of one's erotic desire (sexual orientation), a person can choose how they respond to those mysterious desires. I state as much because I fail to see how the factually of that declaration can be disputed.

Correct me if I have this wrong, but it sounds as if you are saying that homosexuals should remain celibate. Can you see how a homosexual person might see this attitude as a tad judgmental?

Logged

"Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist."Epicurus

We have been around this garden walk with TOT before. He equates physical sexual activity (regardless of why the person is doing it) with sexual orientation.

So a woman who is a prostitute and does sexual things with men for pay is automatically heterosexual. Prostitution is not exactly about choosing your partners-- you are doing it with people who pay you. Strippers and exotic dancers often report disliking men and feeling turned off and asexual from doing that kind of work. But TOT argues that these women are heterosexual because they do lap dances with men and pretend to like it.

Even if she hates men, has to smoke crack to get naked with men, barfs after she does it with men, and gives all her money to her lesbian girlfriend. She is still hetero. (I have known a couple of women like that-- they identified as gay, not bisexual; if they could have made good money only having sex with women, they probably would not have gone with men.)

Also, men who do sexual things with other men only when they are in prison are gay according to TOT, even though they never do such things in their regular lives. They could be married and straight as arrows, but survive in prison by participating in sexual activity with other men. Because there are only men around, and there is a sexual power dynamic at work. So does that mean that every man who goes to prison is bisexual or gay?

It seems a strange way to define sexuality, not by what people prefer, or who they are really attracted to or who they want to spend time with romantically. It is all about what body parts are in contact, no matter how the people involved feel about it. TOT, you are a hair from saying that if a virgin woman is raped by a man that means she is hetero because the only sexual contact she had was with the opposite sex. And those boys molested by priests are automatically gay, but when they grow up and have sex with a woman they become bisexual.

I suppose you could be generous and say that everyone is omnisexual or something, depending on the circumstances. But most people are probably mainly attracted to either men or women. Regardless of who they actually have sex with. And, given that there are gay people in every society in history, even those like Saudi Arabia that persecute and kill gays, it does not seem to be much of a choice. Why would a Saudi choose to be gay when it means ostracism and death? Just choose to be straight and enjoy life, right?

You see, Truth. You started out by saying that ALL sexuality is a choice (remember, I quoted you on that?). That would be hetero/homo/trans/etc. These are all SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS. So yes, you are claiming that a persons sexual orientation is a matter of choice. You are claiming that a persons sexual desires can be chosen at will. Which is in direct opposition to the evidence and the general opinion of the scientific community. Yes, a person can choose to do homosexual acts, but that does not actually make them homosexual in and of itself because sexual orientation is a matter of ones desire, not what one actually does.

So you were either lying when you said what I quoted. Or you are lying now when you try to say that "I don't know" is your answer to sexual orientation. Either way, you're lying.

Or, alternately I suppose there's also the likelihood that you just don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about and are just making claims out of your utter ignorance of the subject matter. There's that too.

As a sidenote, I would point out that you ignored the rest of what I said, and have still failed to provide even the slightest bit of evidence to support your position. So we still stand at a baseless claim that you are trying to portray as having validity. Which in and of itself is also dishonest.

We have been around this garden walk with TOT before. He equates physical sexual activity (regardless of why the person is doing it) with sexual orientation.

Actually this is a common flaw with a lot of Truths ideas. His view of human behaviour is exceptionally shallow. He views a persons actions as summing up everything about them. In previous threads it was brought up that he views a person who performs "good" actions (such as giving to charities) as being a "good" person, irregardless of their actual motives for doing so. In his view a person who gives money to orphans, just to score himself some good publicity, is still a good and moral person. Simply by virtue of having carried out an act that could, on it's own, be viewed as "good". He has outright stated that in his view a persons intentions or mindset have no bearing on whether they are good or not, it is merely their actions. There's no depth or subtlety to his thinking. It's simply someone did this action, so they must be this.

Because there are only men around, and there is a sexual power dynamic at work. So does that mean that every man who goes to prison is bisexual or gay?

Yes, they are according to him. At least so long as they are in the prison having gay sex. Once they leave they magically become hetero again. At least that's what he said in the last thread. We'll see what his story changes to this time around.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Actually you don't know that. I already asked for Truth OT to specify the cut-off point; when one "turns back" to asexual after performing said sexual acts. Maybe it's instantaneous. Who knows. If not, they could be having sex with prostitutes or their wives before they "turn back" to asexuals and so they become bisexual for a short period of time before the clock on their previous homosexual sexual acts runs out. Like Cinderella, you know?

« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 02:24:24 AM by Lucifer »

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

Maybe it's like job points in Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy. You switch to being homosexual and then for every act you get so many points to level up your homosexuality skills. Then later you change "jobs" to being transexual and level up that field for a while. All the while getting to keep the skills and talents you learned from your homosexual "job". Then you just switch them out as the situation demands.

Also, if you level them up enough you unlock new "jobs". For example if you become a level 6 Homosexual, and a level 8 Heterosexual you unlock the Bisexual "job".

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Maybe it's like job points in Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy. You switch to being homosexual and then for every act you get so many points to level up your homosexuality skills.

Got a better one that's probably the basis for Truth OT's views - The Sims 3. In that game, you literally gain points for performing romantic actions on same-sex sims and opposite-sex sims. Those points translate into your sims' sexual orientation. If you perform a romantic action on a same-sex sim, you get 2 homosexual points and lose 1 heterosexual point and vice-versa.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

How would one go about making themselves sexual? By engaging in sexual activity would be the answer I'd give. With that said, in my opinion one makes themselves homosexual by engaging in same-sex sexuality and other behaviors associated with whatever type of homosexuality is employed.

You give one guy a handjob and you're a fagola?

What if you stick your honker through a glory hole and you get a bj. And you don't know it's a guy, but you kind of suspect because you think you feel a moustache. But you finish anyway because whomever was do it was doing one hell of a job. Homo or not?

You skipped a couple questions that I thought were relevant. They had to do with you personally. If you'd go back and answer them, I'd appreciate it.

Correct me if I have this wrong, but it sounds as if you are saying that homosexuals should remain celibate. Can you see how a homosexual person might see this attitude as a tad judgmental?

I find that attitude more than merely a tad judgmental myself. So let me correct you DA; I am NOT saying homo, hetero, or bisexuals should remain celibate. What I am saying is simply this: ALL PEOPLE can CHOOSE how they behave sexually regardless of what prompts their erotic desire. In addition, I am also stating that I believe that it is far more likely that we are innately bisexual than it is that we are biologically predetermined to be hom, hetero, bi, or asexual.

What I am saying is simply this: ALL PEOPLE can CHOOSE how they behave sexually regardless of what prompts their erotic desire.

You're also saying that how they act is what determines who they are, rather than it being determined by how they feel.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

You see, Truth. You started out by saying that ALL sexuality is a choice (remember, I quoted you on that?). That would be hetero/homo/trans/etc. These are all SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS. So yes, you are claiming that a persons sexual orientation is a matter of choice. You are claiming that a persons sexual desires can be chosen at will. Which is in direct opposition to the evidence and the general opinion of the scientific community.

I did say that sexuality is a choice, but I did not say sexual orientation was. Sexuality and sexual orientation are not one in the same. Sexuality involves behavior while sexual orientation is about who one's erotic desire is directed towards. Sexuality can be controlled whereas we have no evidence that sexual orientation can be controlled or manipulated by any scientific means.

Yes, a person can choose to do homosexual acts, but that does not actually make them homosexual in and of itself because sexual orientation is a matter of ones desire, not what one actually does.

Based on the fact that being a homosexual is defined as a type of sexual orientation, I must agree with you. But from a logical standpoint, if you have a person that chooses to willfully engage in homosexual activity, how can you classify them any other way but homo or bisexual? As I have said countless times, it makes very little practical sense to weight orientation above actual sexuality. The two both carry weight.

So you were either lying when you said what I quoted. Or you are lying now when you try to say that "I don't know" is your answer to sexual orientation. Either way, you're lying.

Or, alternately I suppose there's also the likelihood that you just don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about and are just making claims out of your utter ignorance of the subject matter. There's that too.

As a sidenote, I would point out that you ignored the rest of what I said, and have still failed to provide even the slightest bit of evidence to support your position. So we still stand at a baseless claim that you are trying to portray as having validity. Which in and of itself is also dishonest.

I thought I was clear. I don't know is my answer as it pertains to the origins of S.O. What I stated an opinion on was not S.O. but rather sexuality (sexual behavior). That is what I declare we all have a choice in. If you call that claim baseless I must ask; How can that idea be disputed?

We have been around this garden walk with TOT before. He equates physical sexual activity (regardless of why the person is doing it) with sexual orientation.

Actually this is a common flaw with a lot of Truths ideas. His view of human behaviour is exceptionally shallow. He views a persons actions as summing up everything about them. In previous threads it was brought up that he views a person who performs "good" actions (such as giving to charities) as being a "good" person, irregardless of their actual motives for doing so. In his view a person who gives money to orphans, just to score himself some good publicity, is still a good and moral person. Simply by virtue of having carried out an act that could, on it's own, be viewed as "good". He has outright stated that in his view a persons intentions or mindset have no bearing on whether they are good or not, it is merely their actions. There's no depth or subtlety to his thinking. It's simply someone did this action, so they must be this.

A man can learn and progress people. I get that sexuality and sexual orientation have separate definitions. I DO NOT equate the 2. What I will say is this: If one's lifestyle is lived in a manner that is not reflective of the person's sexual orientation, then that person's sexual orientation looses relavance. That's my opinion of course, but I will ask those of you with a differing opinion to illustrate how and why in the above described scenario one's sexual orientation is most relavant.

A person's intent, motives, and mindset definitely has bearing on whether a person is good or not, if I ever hinted that those things did not matter at all, MY BAD, I misspoke. What I want to communicate is that the sum of a person's deeds carries as much and usually more weight than the person's intentions.

Because there are only men around, and there is a sexual power dynamic at work. So does that mean that every man who goes to prison is bisexual or gay?

Yes, they are according to him. At least so long as they are in the prison having gay sex. Once they leave they magically become hetero again. At least that's what he said in the last thread. We'll see what his story changes to this time around.

Based on how sexual orientation is defined, what a person does sexually may not be reflective of their orientation, I get that. In the case of men in prison that live a homosexual lifestyle despite having a sexual orientation where their erotic desire is for women, technically I guess it would be inaccurate to call them homo or bisexual provided that when they get out their orientation is still towards women. But the fact still remains that Locked Up Joe did willingly participate in a homosexual lifestyle in the scenario you described. Is his participation somehow totally irrevelant to his sexuality? How does his sexual orientation matter in prison if he is a hetero doing homo things?(On a side note I wonder if spending years in prison and participating in a homosexual lifestyle could condition a person that was initially oriented towards women only to become fixated/oriented with men.)

What I am saying is simply this: ALL PEOPLE can CHOOSE how they behave sexually regardless of what prompts their erotic desire.

You're also saying that how they act is what determines who they are, rather than it being determined by how they feel.

Are you saying that feeling = being Luc? If so, we disagree. WHat I am saying is NOT that feelings do not matter, but rather that actions along with feelings and perhaps other factors work together in determining who someone is. Why shoulld more value be given to feelings than actions in most settings?

Why should more value be given to feelings than actions in most settings?

In this setting it's because sexuality depends on involuntary attraction (feelings), not voluntary actions.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

Based on the fact that being a homosexual is defined as a type of sexual orientation, I must agree with you. But from a logical standpoint, if you have a person that chooses to willfully engage in homosexual activity, how can you classify them any other way but homo or bisexual? As I have said countless times, it makes very little practical sense to weight orientation above actual sexuality. The two both carry weight.

I would agree with this statement, but I would posit that the percentage of people who identify as straight yet choose to engage predominately in homosexual relations is so small it is pretty much insignificant.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Sexuality and sexual orientation are not one in the same. Sexuality involves behavior while sexual orientation is about who one's erotic desire is directed towards. Sexuality can be controlled whereas we have no evidence that sexual orientation can be controlled or manipulated by any scientific means.

And you have said that sexual orientation (ones sexual desires) is a choice. As I said I QUOTED YOU SAYING THAT. As for the evidence, quite a bit was already provided by myself and others, most of which you ignored and didn't respond to. Remember Truth, this is a forum not a verbal conversation. The words don't go away. We can just scroll up and see where people have provided evidence, as well as the things you've said. So trying to lie doesn't help you much.

Based on the fact that being a homosexual is defined as a type of sexual orientation, I must agree with you.

See? Here we have it again. You are agreeing that homosexual is a type of sexual orientation. Whereas you previously stated outright that homosexuality is a choice. So you ARE claiming that we choose sexual orientation. If you're going to rely on pathetic lies, at least keep them straight.

But from a logical standpoint, if you have a person that chooses to willfully engage in homosexual activity, how can you classify them any other way but homo or bisexual? As I have said countless times, it makes very little practical sense to weight orientation above actual sexuality. The two both carry weight.

But they are not the same thing. As I said before, acting Japanese does not make me japanese. If a person chooses to engage in homosexual activity you do not necessarily classify them as such because there could be many other factors that cause the behaviour instead of their sexual orientation. That's why your position is not only idiotic, but useless. It ignores all other factors involved.

I thought I was clear. I don't know is my answer as it pertains to the origins of S.O. What I stated an opinion on was not S.O. but rather sexuality (sexual behavior). That is what I declare we all have a choice in. If you call that claim baseless I must ask; How can that idea be disputed?

Well first off I can dispute it because you can't even use your terms consistently. You use sexual orientation and sexuality interchangeably as you feel they help your case. For example, you say "I don't know" is your answer to the origins of sexual orientation. Except you have repeatedly classified it as a choice. Only to say that you were referring to sexuality, then go back to talking about sexual orientation as a choice. That alone pretty much invalidates anything you have to say on the topic.

Also this is an argument from ignorance. You are trying to make a claim that you have no proof for it and then claiming that you can't see how it can be disputed in lieu or providing supporting evidence. Which also further wrecks your claims of logic that you made earlier.

Furthermore there is much of human behaviour that we don't have a choice in. We react naturally in certain ways to certain stimuli and based on the wiring of our brains. So no, our sexual behaviour is not necessarily governed by choice. That's why you have to actually back up what you're saying. Which you clearly can't.

Are you saying that feeling = being Luc? If so, we disagree. WHat I am saying is NOT that feelings do not matter, but rather that actions along with feelings and perhaps other factors work together in determining who someone is. Why shoulld more value be given to feelings than actions in most settings?

No, this is not what you are saying. This is what you are starting to say now. You began by stating a very different position. You're just changing it again to suit yourself.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Sexuality and sexual orientation are not one in the same. Sexuality involves behavior while sexual orientation is about who one's erotic desire is directed towards. Sexuality can be controlled whereas we have no evidence that sexual orientation can be controlled or manipulated by any scientific means.

And you have said that sexual orientation (ones sexual desires) is a choice. As I said I QUOTED YOU SAYING THAT. As for the evidence, quite a bit was already provided by myself and others, most of which you ignored and didn't respond to. Remember Truth, this is a forum not a verbal conversation. The words don't go away. We can just scroll up and see where people have provided evidence, as well as the things you've said. So trying to lie doesn't help you much.

Initially I said the following:

Quote

Gotta stand by my previous position (as no evidence to contradict has been presented) that ALL sexuality (that is how we act out our sexual desires or respond to our individual sexual stimuli) be it 'homo', hetero', 'bi', 'a', etc., is a choice.

I can see the problem with this now as it could be read and understood to imply that I believe sexual orientation is a choice because I used the terms 'homo', hetero', and 'bi' without explicitly declaring that the 'homo', hetero', and 'bi' references was strictly pertaining to behavior. Sexual orientation was not the subject matter I was discussing with the above paragraph. What I was discussing was sexuality (sexual behavior).

But they are not the same thing. As I said before, acting Japanese does not make me japanese. If a person chooses to engage in homosexual activity you do not necessarily classify them as such because there could be many other factors that cause the behaviour instead of their sexual orientation. That's why your position is not only idiotic, but useless. It ignores all other factors involved.

Your standpoint is not logical, it's shallow and narrow-minded.

False analogy. Being Japanese, black, or even tall are definitely and completely biological. You are ASSUMING that to be the case for sexual orientation as well. Why the assuption when the same CANNOT be said for sexuality or sexual orientation? For one to be Japanese one must either be born into a Japanese family or one can perhaps become a legal Japanese citizen (though that still doesn't make the person biologically Japanese only Japanese in the eyes of the legal authorities). One cannot become Japanese by 'acting' japanese, whatever that means. One CAN be considered as homosexual by participating in homosexual activities. One of the definitions of homosexual according to Merriam-Webster says as much:

Quote

of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Furthermore there is much of human behaviour that we don't have a choice in. We react naturally in certain ways to certain stimuli and based on the wiring of our brains. So no, our sexual behaviour is not necessarily governed by choice. That's why you have to actually back up what you're saying. Which you clearly can't.

That's my opinion of course, but I will ask those of you with a differing opinion to illustrate how and why in the above described scenario one's sexual orientation is most relavant.

It's your claim, it's up to you to back it up. Otherwise it's to be dsicarded.

The reason why is because the shared reality we live and interact in is not effected by it. For that reason, it has very little relevance. It would only become relevant if the person's orientation effected how they lived their life, how happy they were, how they treated others, how they interacted, you know, effected the decisions they made.

Gotta stand by my previous position (as no evidence to contradict has been presented) that ALL sexuality (that is how we act out our sexual desires or respond to our individual sexual stimuli) be it 'homo', hetero', 'bi', 'a', etc., is a choice.

How we act is a choice but our desires are not a choice and that is the topic. You are playing deceptive word-games.

A seemingly definitive declaration is made "The prevailing view is that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice. That is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual." is if this has been proven, then the very same wiki article goes on to say:

Quote

Current scientific investigation seeks to find biological explanations for the adoption of a particular sexual orientation. As yet there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for human sexual orientation although scientific studies have found a number of statistical biological differences between gay people and heterosexuals, which may result from the same underlying cause as sexual orientation itself.

That isn't exactly being honest, totally forthcoming with the facts, and upfront. What it is seems more like when people have a preconception and try to fit the data into confirming that preconception. Sometimes saying, "I don't know" is best. And in the case of the origins of sexual orientation, we honestly can only at this point say, "we don't know."

Again, according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientationVarious studies point to different, even conflicting positions, such as a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment,[2] or no genetic influence.-----It would seem most reasonable to conclude at this point that humans have a predisposition towards sexuality and that there is a "trigger" or there are "triggers" of some sort that we have yet to be able to positively identify, that funnels individuals towards a particular sexual orientation.

The control of the direction of an individual's conscious erotic desire (which is basically how sexual orientation is defined), has NOT proven to be something individuals can influence or change by any scientific means. My issue is not with the idea stated above. What I take issue with is sexually identifying individuals based on this factor moreso than identifying individuals based on the sexual behavior that they exhibit in the shared reality that we know as the real world. If makes very little practical sense to weight orientation above actual sexuality.

In addition, I've lost my train of thought.............will continue in a minute.

I changed the highlighting in the Wiki quote. You need to look up the word etiology apparently. The article correctly states that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice but the exact source is not yet known – to boil it down for you. You seem to almost get this but then veer away. Maybe for you it is a matter of rocket surgery and one of your thrusters is off.

Even if sexual orientation is proven not to have a genetic cause does not mean it is a matter of choice.

Almost everyone presents themselves as they see themselves not as they are; why should one's sexual orientation be any different?

Are you saying that feeling = being Luc? If so, we disagree. What I am saying is NOT that feelings do not matter, but rather that actions along with feelings and perhaps other factors work together in determining who someone is. Why should more value be given to feelings than actions in most settings?

(Two typos corrected) Because feelings give rise to actions. And if the person believes that certain feelings are wrong then not acting on them causes other feelings and actions. For example, a self-hating homosexual acting str8 and very anti-gay.

I find your attitude about actions mattering more than feelings to be very curious. Unfamiliar enough with this site and your posts I can not state anything only ask: Do you have Asperger's? If not, are you a sociopath?

A person with Asperger's has trouble understanding other people and could have learned to cope by only evaluating a person's actions and ignoring their feelings. It would not be a great solution but it would be a functional one.

A sociopath has no feelings and so they do not matter at all. A sociopath would only react to actions.

If neither of those, would you tell me why you focus only on actions? (If you even know why you do it.)

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

I have a feeling that the "You've got a choice" point of view comes from those who indeed have homosexual tendencies and noticed it and were too scared to go that route and stayed straight. I'm guessing that works about 3% of the time. The rest go the Ted Haggard route. (I'm straight but the first time I saw that guy on TV I said "that guy is gay!", even without working gaydar.) Anyway, that makes it a choice.

It has been shown via studies that men who self-identify as anti-gay are more turned on by gay male porn than those who are not anti-gay. So they have to choose which kind of porn to watch on the net too.

Life is rough, isn't it.

I don't suppose you have a link or book info where I can find those studies? That sounds like great ammo to have.

The ultra-conservative seem to find themselves in such compromising positions with amusing regularity.

My bet is there is a reason for this. You frequently hear from ultra-conservatives that homosexuality is a choice and that people can be indoctrinated into that lifestyle. My guess is that they believe this because the are in fact homo/bisexual. After all, iif Satan can temp a God fearing individual such as themself, wham chance does little Johnny have against the gay agenda. It seems like little more than a coping mechanism to reconcile their sexual attraction with their fundamentalist beliefs.

This is a very interesting perspective on the matter that I had not previously considered. Could be some truth in there. If they truly believe they are being tempted by the devil and this misguided belief[1] compels them to speak out against homosexuality, maybe they are not as hypocritical as they appear. Still ignorant jackasses, however.

In Alonzo Bodden's comedy special, "Who's Paying Attention?" he discusses Ted Haggard and says that the devil could tempt Alonzo all day long with "sweaty man ass" and he still wouldn't be interested.

I also found these:NeilGreenberg1 commenting on Why I Support J. Crew's Controversial Pink Toenail Ad

Quote

So much bizarre misinformation. I spent my childhood playing with toy guns, but my parents were sure I was gay when I was a teen, because I listened only to Broadway shows and had zero interest in sports. Nevertheless, I have been a raging heterosexual all my life, despite the fact that in my twenties I wondered if I could get laid more by being gay. Just couldn't cross over, not even in my fantasy life. You are what you are, anywhere on the continuum. It ain't about toenail polish.

Wayne Besen, Founder of Truth Wins Out also commenting on Why I Support J. Crew's Controversial Pink Toenail Ad

Quote

It was my senior year of high school and our basketball team was playing our rivals. As the team's captain, I knew I had to carry the team on my shoulders if we had a chance to win. Despite my 25 points and 15 rebounds, we still lost to a team with superior talent.

Following our defeat, our angry coach barreled into the locker room and slammed the chalkboard. He then launched into a tirade where he bellowed, "Everyone on this team played like faggots... except for Wayne." Although I was not out of the closet yet, I thought, "Coach, if we would have played like fags, we would have won the game."

I tell this story to point out that sexual orientation and gender identity are about who a person is deep inside -- not a result of the clothes they wear or the activities they participate in. I grew up playing basketball, football, and baseball. The entire time I was playing -- and at times excelling -- I knew I was gay.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

False analogy. Being Japanese, black, or even tall are definitely and completely biological. You are ASSUMING that to be the case for sexual orientation as well.

Not a false analogy. I am not assuming it. There is quite a bit of evidence saying so. Some of it was presented, most of which you did not even respond to. This is why it's not a reach to say that you're lying. Because you keep saying things like this.

What you have to do is refute the evidence and show that it isn't biological or that all of the evidence is faulty. Then you can claim that I'm making an assumption and that the analogy is false.

Why the assuption when the same CANNOT be said for sexuality or sexual orientation? For one to be Japanese one must either be born into a Japanese family or one can perhaps become a legal Japanese citizen (though that still doesn't make the person biologically Japanese only Japanese in the eyes of the legal authorities).

And the evidence says that a person can be born gay. Which you have yet to effectively dispute. So the analogy holds.

One can not become Japanese by 'acting' japanese, whatever that means. One CAN be considered as homosexual by participating in homosexual activities. One of the definitions of homosexual according to Merriam-Webster says as much:

Quote

of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

The reason why is because the shared reality we live and interact in is not effected by it. For that reason, it has very little relevance. It would only become relevant if the person's orientation effected how they lived their life, how happy they were, how they treated others, how they interacted, you know, effected the decisions they made.

This is so stupid I don't even know where to begin.

Do I actually have to explain to you how a persons sexual orientation can affect their life?

Especially in a society where one can be ostracized/bullied/disowned by family just for having an orientation that is considered unacceptable.

Or we could address the fact that many people who are gay have heterosexual relationships as a means to hide the fact from society. Leading to lives filled with depression, self-loathing, and fear of being exposed. Not to mention the stress of dealing with all of those suppressed urges. and similar issues. I would say that it has quite a bit of relevance.

The real world is not as shallow and simple as you want to make it.

Also even if it did have very little relevance that has no bearing on whether it's correct to do so. Or whether your opinion is right.

I'm still waiting for your evience by the way, I'm sure it's forthcoming right? Along with your addressing of some of the other evidence.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

TOT, can you imagine what life would be like for a gay person living under Taliban rule or in Saudi Arabia? Where the result of expressing your orientation physically would be prison or execution? Can these folks just choose to be straight and live happily ever after?

If we lived in a country where the leaders decided that everyone who was straight would be killed, what would we all do? Just choose to be gay and live happily ever after?

I have had Middle Eastern students tell me that they think parents in the US must make their kids gay somehow, because they never saw any gay people until they came to the US. According to many Muslim leaders, there are no gay Muslims. Guess why?[1]

TOT, can you imagine what life would be like for a gay person living under Taliban rule or in Saudi Arabia? Where the result of expressing your orientation physically would be prison or execution? Can these folks just choose to be straight and live happily ever after?

If we lived in a country where the leaders decided that everyone who was straight would be killed, what would we all do? Just choose to be gay and live happily ever after?

I have had Middle Eastern students tell me that they think parents in the US must make their kids gay somehow, because they never saw any gay people until they came to the US. According to many Muslim leaders, there are no gay Muslims. Guess why?[1]

Of course, despite the fact that there aren't any gays, the regimes still find enough to hold executions every Friday.

This is something I wasn't sure I was going to bring up, but since nogods touched on it, I'll say it.

ToT's view has a lot of disturbing and repulsive implications to it.

Such as the fact that one can take what someone is naturally and treat it as something else. On the basis that you think the distinction is irrelevant.

For example he says that orientation does not matter in labelling someone gay. So how does this stop people from changing other portions of a definition to label someone into whatever they want?

It also (as nogods pointed out) trivializes the emotions and experiences of other humans. He's saying that they should be judged on their actions because he deems their feelings and desires to be irrelevant. I doubt the people he's talking about would feel the same.

This is ultimately only all about him and how he wants to label the world and others. Not about whether being gay is actually a choice.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

If we lived in a country where the leaders decided that everyone who was straight would be killed, what would we all do? Just choose to be gay and live happily ever after?

What's the deal with 'happily ever after'? If we lived in a society where hetero behavior was punishable by law, then there would be a lot more people who would be gay or practice abstainance. If such a culture were to exist for generations, later generations would come to view hetero behavior as less desirable and there would likely be less of a public uproar than initially because it will have become the norm.

I have had Middle Eastern students tell me that they think parents in the US must make their kids gay somehow, because they never saw any gay people until they came to the US. According to many Muslim leaders, there are no gay Muslims. Guess why?[1]

Of course, despite the fact that there aren't any gays, the regimes still find enough to hold executions every Friday.

It's an issue of culture. In the west, we have a more open sexual attitude than in the Middle East. With sex in general being more pervasive it make sense to think that the practice of homosexuality would be as well. So I guess in a twisted way we make our kids whores, homosexuals, nymphos, philanderers, etc. due to us having an open in your face sexual culture.

Such as the fact that one can take what someone is naturally and treat it as something else. On the basis that you think the distinction is irrelevant.

For example he says that orientation does not matter in labelling someone gay. So how does this stop people from changing other portions of a definition to label someone into whatever they want?

You make assumptions and read your understanding into things and that causes you to make errors in your respresentation of things written by others (Me). I never said "one can take what someone is naturally and treat it as something else," you imply that I said that's because according to your understanding, convictions, and perhaps even misconceptions that is the case. As far as sexuality and the treatment of someone based on their sexuality is concerned; are their distinct treatments that should be given to people with differing sexual orientations? I ask this assuming that we agree that the answer is 'no', but also to point out that treatment of people is not an issue I brought up for discussion. I did however, mention what I believe the perception of individuals should be. For me, that perception is initially, not exclusively, but initially based on WHAT PEOPLE DO. Nowhere did I say that the motivations behind those actions were not important or valid. What I did purposely imply, whether right or wrong, was that those motives should NOT necessarily carry more weight than one's actions. In addition, I do not wish for people to believe that I am saying orientation does not matter. It can matter greatly. What I did say was that when it doesn't factor in on how one acts, then it becomes less relevant.

-----Bigger picture for me is a yet to be proven hypothesis that I wish to put forth that finds flaws in the current understanding as it relates to human sexual orientation that lists hetero, homo, bi, and asexual as sexual orientations. The idea I put forth is that overwhelmingly human beings are sexually oriented creatures. With that said, a human's biological sexual orientation can truly only fall into 1 of 2 catagories those being SEXUAL or ASEXUAL. SEXUAL humans simply have an innate drive to engage in sexual activities. There are varieties of sexual activities SEXUALLY ORIENTED humans can engage in with some activities arousing greater erotic desires for individuals than others. We do not know all of the reasons why certain individuals are drawn to certain desires and other individuals are drawn in by different sexual desires.

If we lived in a country where the leaders decided that everyone who was straight would be killed, what would we all do? Just choose to be gay and live happily ever after?

What's the deal with 'happily ever after'? If we lived in a society where hetero behavior was punishable by law, then there would be a lot more people who would be gay or practice abstainance. If such a culture were to exist for generations, later generations would come to view hetero behavior as less desirable and there would likely be less of a public uproar than initially because it will have become the norm.

I have had Middle Eastern students tell me that they think parents in the US must make their kids gay somehow, because they never saw any gay people until they came to the US. According to many Muslim leaders, there are no gay Muslims. Guess why?[1]

Of course, despite the fact that there aren't any gays, the regimes still find enough to hold executions every Friday.

It's an issue of culture. In the west, we have a more open sexual attitude than in the Middle East. With sex in general being more pervasive it make sense to think that the practice of homosexuality would be as well. So I guess in a twisted way we make our kids whores, homosexuals, nymphos, philanderers, etc. due to us having an open in your face sexual culture.

Such as the fact that one can take what someone is naturally and treat it as something else. On the basis that you think the distinction is irrelevant.

For example he says that orientation does not matter in labelling someone gay. So how does this stop people from changing other portions of a definition to label someone into whatever they want?

[snip]

I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. My example of gays in the Middle East was not really about Islamic culture. I am talking about having to change the way you behave to fit what others expect of you, just to keep from being identified, labelled, harrassed, attacked or even killed.

No matter how hard you try, you are not going to be able to change how you feel or who you are attracted to. (Otherwise that gay aversion therapy or whatever it is would work. It don't.) But you will have to pretend that your feelings and attractions are the opposite of what they really are. You will have to "pass" as something that you are not.

In a virulently anti-gay environment, pretending to be straight may save your life. But you will not live "happily ever after". You will very likely live in misery, in fear of being found out, in conflict with your inner self, and in a state of self-hatred from internalizing the negative views of your society. You might engage in self-destructive behavior like excessive drinking, drugs, risky jackass sh!t.

You would have to give up on romantic relationships, and figure out an acceptable way to be celibate (hmmmm, priest, perhaps?). Or you would have to fake being heterosexual, pretend to like some poor unsuspecting woman, marry her and settle for a phony half-life where you are lying to her every minute of every day.

Until you can't stand it anymore and pull a Ted Haggard or a Larry Craig, and watch your life fall apart. Unless you really are a conservative republican politician and/or fundamentalist Christian tv preacher. Then you are not responsible for your actions. You will be let off the hook.[2]

Try your point of view (that you are gay if you have sex with same sex, straight if you have sex with the opposite and asexual if you do neither) on a virgin gay kid (male here, but same for females) in high school who has been bullied to the point of considering suicide: "Why not just choose to be straight? You haven't done anything with a guy yet. Doesn't matter that you want to. You are currently actually asexual, so just make sure that when you do have sex, to always do it with a girl. That will make you heterosexual. Easy peasy."

He will look at you like you are out of your mind. (Especially for that "easy peasy", dude.) He has tried all his life to be straight! Everyone around him wants him to be straight. He has pretended for years before finally coming out, first of all to himself. He has tried to be attracted to girls--his best friends are girls. But he can't make himself like them "that way". No matter what he does physically, he knows that inside he is still gay.

At least some of us in the US and many other places are becoming more accepting of people as they are, and are willing to just let them be. Life is too short to force people to pretend and play-act and live a lie, just to make the rest of us feel smug and secure.[3]

When the video shows up on youtube with you dressed like Little Bo Peep with two male hookers in Viking costume, a crack pipe and a pile of sex toys, simply blame it on Satan, teh gays, internet porn, and the liberal media. Then a)ask god's forgiveness, b)assert your love for your wife, and c)jump back into the closet.

It occurs to me that I have a similar perspective on atheism. I can't force myself to believe in magical beings anymore than I can force myself to be gay and exclusively be attracted to women. But if I lived in a theocracy I might have to pretend.